Fly Fishing Forum banner

Another attack on Fish

8K views 62 replies 18 participants last post by  flytyer 
#1 ·
#4 ·
Did you guys happen to notice each article mentioned the federal courts ordered NOAA-Fisheries to include and consider the economic costs of protection and reach a ballance between protection and economic costs? Also, a federal judge in Spokane took the Columbia system dams (including all Snake River dams) off the table for consideration in protecting or re-establishing salmonids in the Columbia Basin in the order he issued last year, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in late September of early October of this year.

Since the federal courts took the dams and how they are operated out of consideration for recovery or extirpation of salmon, and the federal courts have ordered NOAA-Fisheries to include economic costs in the recovery plan, it would appear NOAA-Fisheries is complying with what the courts have ordered. Would you prefer NOAA-Fisheries ignore the federal cout orders and have the courts appoint whom they wish to develop recovery plans and oversee them? Based on the federal court decisions the last few years regarding fish, I don't.
 
#5 ·
Russ,

I have no problem with a court ordered cost/benefit analysis on listings but I have a huge problem with removing from the equation 80% of habitat. It sounds great for the property rights side to claim that this only removes that habitat where there are no longer fish but if you step back and look at it, adopting their logic just cements the downward spiral. It is called "recovery" for a reason. If the stocks didn't need recovery, then current habitat might make some sense but they do need recovery and this, almost by definition, requires reclaiming of historical habitat. To my way of thinking, this decision is the same as ruling runs never will recover so current habitat is all they need.

Can the ever popular "carrying capacity" argument be far behind? And what happens when the runs continue to decline. Will this then mean there will even less habitat to protect?

I fear that coupled with the administrations belief in hatchery augmentation, the future of our wild stocks in indeed dire.

'tip
 
#6 ·
You might not believe this . . . .

but someone told me Dick Cheney is an avid flyfisherman! :eek:

Then again, he's also a hunter. He likes to shoot pheasant recently released from their pens on "private" hunting preserves. In fact, he recently bragged that he and his buddies had bagged almost 100 of these semi-domestic birds in a days shoot.

I can only imagine what he considers "good" flyfishing?

Yeah Gillie - I hear ya! It's pretty much what I expected too.

DS
 
#7 ·
Duggan,

I agree we need to have as much habitat as possible. However, I also know that the federal courts struck a blow to Montana's efforts to preserve or restore upstream habitat for bull trout and westslope cutthroat. And I'm afraid what we are seeing is NOAA-Fisheries reacting to these court rulings.

There is also the problem of above dam habitat, such as that on the Columbia above Grand Coulee Dam, the Clearwater above Windchester Dam, or the Snake above the Salmon. Salmon and steelhead have not been able to make it up there for years. Or the upper Deschutes or Rogue, where steelhead have also not been able to access the upper river and tributaries for years. The Skokomish is another one where dams have blocked access to the upper watershed for years. Are we to include the upriver areas of these rivers for restoration of anadromous fish?
 
#8 ·
Flytyer,
There does need to be moderation in managing fisheries vs. economy and other interests. However. the court ruling only said that these issues needed to be weighed against each other. The Bush adminstration has appointed people to the posts that make the decisions who have no interest in conservation. They are former members of the lumber industry and lawyers who have made their careers helping companies evade EPA regulations and hide their pollution. The courts may have limited efforts but the current administration has gladly taken advantage of the oppurtunity to repay big business and pilage the environment.

Gillie
 
#10 ·
Russ,

I suppose we could all sit here and bring up cases in the extreme. The bottom line for me is the question if the present administration is friendly to fish and the environment. Regardless of interaction by other variables such as congress or the courts, is the Bush admin fish friendly?

For me the answer is a resounding no! The overall pattern shows an administration that rates the worst on the environment in at least the last 50 years if not since before Teddy R.

Duggan
 
#12 ·
Russ,

I don't have a problem with weighing economic impact in the situation. But NOAA only takes that to include cost and refuses to include the benifits from fish recovery. Case in point the Bull trout paper from montana. They only added up the negatives not any of the positives from having a healthy fishery by getting more tourist dollars. Come on please at least give some semblance of fairness.

They were told to weigh it not how much to weigh it. They are making that call themselves. Just like the Hogan decision left it up to them to either change policy and count rainbows and hatchery fish or to just change their definitions within the ESU and they choose the first option not the sensible second open.

Courts are asking them to reconsider and show they looked at issues and considered them they aren't telling them how to implement them. And you now that.

JJ
 
#13 ·
NOAA proposal exposed...

For those who would like to see what is proposed, check this out: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/crithab/CHsite.htm It's a page that covers the recent proposal.

Note the word: proposal. From reading the knee-jerk reactions here, you'd think that the process of excluding or adding watersheds was an accomplished fact. Nothing has been finished except a response to a court decision.

If you disagree with the proposal as put forth by NOAA, then you have about six months in which to reply.
 
#15 ·
Gillie, Duggan, JJ,


I've just got done reading the first 50 pages of the 400 page recovery plan written for the federal registry. Interesting ready to say the least. In these pages, it is clear that NOAA-Fisheries was required by a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to change how economic impact analysis was being done by FWS because the 10th circuit rejected how Fisheries was doing the analysis. Therefore, the courts are most certainly telling NOAA-Fisheries how to do some things in the plan and not letting it up to NOAA-F to decide how. NOAA-F cannot include things like possilbe tourist dollars in its economic analysis as a result of this ruling. Also, the 10th circuit ruling requires NOAA-F to include the economic benefits of development over biological benefits of habitat. To say the 10th circuit's ruling on how and what NOAA-F includes or can include in its economic analysis has no impact on how NOAA-F can do so, is disengenuous.

It is also clear, that NOAA-Fisheries isusing info gathered by tribal and state fisheries biologist and 400 salmon recovery groups to find where in a specific subbasin and basin salmon and steelhead actually exist or existed in the past. This is different from relying on USGS maps and not actual evidence of fish existence in the court rejeted 2000 plan.

The new plan also designates new critical esturarine and near shore ares, which were not in the 2000 plan.

I for one will be reading the whole 400+ pages of the proposal and not relying on short (in comparison to the 400+ page original document), several paragraph "newsbites" our newspapers are carrying on this very important issue. Even the headline in my local newspaper, Skagit Valley Herald, makes it appear the Bush administration is going to abandon habitat protection. The headline is: Bush plan would cut habitat for NW salmon. The article has 10 short paragraphs on the proposal, 1 paragraph on the National Homebuilder's Association reaction to the proposal (of course they like it, they were the ones who sued to have the original habitat plan changed), and 2 paragraphs on the reaction to the proposal from 2 environmental groups. One can hardly synopse a 400+ page proposal in 10 paragraphs.

The same article then goes on talking about NOAA-F's response to the Spokane and 9th circuit rulings on the Snake and Columbia River dams for an additional 7 paragraphs, none of which say a thing about NOAA-F's proposal, instead focusing on what the Columbia Basin tribes and some environmentalists think of it and one paragraph on how the grain growers who use the rivers for transporting grain feel about it. But not a word on what NOAA-F has proposed in response to the court rulings.

I learned far more from reading the 1st 50 pages of NOAA-F's 400+ page proposal than I did from what has been in the newspapers. The newspapers are reporting it as the sky is falling, when the actual proposal is far different than what is being protrayed by the news outlets.
 
#16 ·
Administrations and their apointees certainly do affect the welfare of the species. For example, former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt got the Elwha Damn removed; unless this administration kills it. His predecessor, former Secretary of the Interior James Watt, had to be stopped before strip mining Yellowstone. He came to meet with Gorton (yes, the same Gorton's of Gloucester Massachusetts fame who over-fish Georges and Stellwagen Bank) to conspire about opening old growth harvest in the OP.

There are many things I admire about the party, but their total disregard for the environment and priority for exploitation over preservation is not one of these things. So in a sense, although the wording was harsh in the above post it's true that there is a certain contradiction in supporting this administration while at the same time claiming to be, or actually being concerned about things like the environment and the creatures that rely on it.

If nothing else there will be a lot of work trying to stop underhanded exploits during this administration, no doubt. I have the feeling that letting up for even a minute will mean big losses that will be paid for by generations to come.

We have a lot of people here, so if there is a good plan put together I am sure we can get some pressure going in a positive direction and stop the eminent slide.

.02
 
#17 ·
Anyone want to make a bet that it stays above 70 %. Russ my good friend and KJ your in denial. Even if it was the courts, where is Bush on speaking out against the courts? He sure knows how to speak out against the courts on gay rights issues and abortion does he not. This is a sick, very sick man who will succeed in destroying the USA. He and his addministration are changing what America has stood for from its begining, TJ must be spilling tears from his grave as we speak.

Dick Chaney what a wonderful man. I had dinner with a senior scientist from the EPA a few weeks ago. This person told us how many of the very best scientists in DC have quit and how moral is at an all time low. Mr Cheney even sent a memo down to this scientist saying that if anyone in that office tries to prosecute any company that deals in defense research for pollution that they will be delt with in the most harshest of ways. Nice eh! Does that mean you will be just fired or does it mean more, far, far more than that? Russ, these are your thugs, stop being in denial and begin to get mad that our country is going to hell faster than anyone could have ever imagined 4 years ago.
 
#19 ·
flytyer said:
There is also the problem of above dam habitat, such as that on the Columbia above Grand Coulee Dam, the Clearwater above Windchester Dam, or the Snake above the Salmon. Salmon and steelhead have not been able to make it up there for years. Or the upper Deschutes or Rogue, where steelhead have also not been able to access the upper river and tributaries for years. The Skokomish is another one where dams have blocked access to the upper watershed for years. Are we to include the upriver areas of these rivers for restoration of anadromous fish?

Russ, in case you are unaware, a pilot effort is underway in Oregon to restore anadromous fish in the Metolius River, above Pelton Dam on the Deschutes.

I consider it pretty short sighted to exclude these regions above dams when we've only started to explore how to open them up again.

So yes, we should include these areas above dams for restoration of anadromous fish. Absolutely. We're doing it right now.
 
#21 ·
I think there is some confusion...

Maybe as OC says, I'm in denial, but the things I'm reading in the press, on the net, and in the abstracts of the report don't add up.

The confusion comes, I think, from the idea that critical habitat protection under the ESA is the same as ALL habitat protection. As I read the report (and I haven't the tolerance for government-speak that Russ has), the issue is removal of ESA protection mandates from those lands not deemed critical to the survival of an evolutionary signifcant unit.

When NOAA first laid its most recent habitat plans down in 2000, they did a quick and dirty job without a lot of evaluation. For example, that led to inclusion of lands such as those in the Columbia above Grand Coulee, a stretch of river that hasn't seen anadramous salmon since the 1930s or whenever the dam was completed. However, the bulk of the shoreline in 186-mile-long Lake Roosevelt is in national monument status and protected or in Indian reservation (excluded). What would be protected here by additional regulation? Why spend the resources and monies on regulation and enforcement here when the resources could be better spent on off-channel habitat on the Skagit or restoring the estuary mouth of the Dungeness or hundreds of other projects that would have an actual impact?

After all, Washington has several laws currently on the books in regards to development along streams and in critical areas. Doesn't Oregon have the same? California?

I'm not pro-development, and I have no mercy for anyone stupid enough to build or buy a house on a flood plain, but I am absolutely against the idea that preservation is the only answer. I do feel that those who champion the idea of locking up everything are doing less good than they think and more harm than they know.

My $.02,

Keith
 
#22 ·
Keith,

I really don't know anyone even the far left enviros who are against responsible growth. Just more Bs spin from the want it all right, like the builders association.

The area you mention above the dam is important to Salmon and steelhead. Even if another fish never migrates above the dam for another thousand years or untill the dam falls down on it's own that is still critical habitat. Reason, if that land is put into industrial farming which it will that will mean more water consumption for crops and less water for an already water starved river. That water used, millions of cubic acres are needed to bring smolts safetly down river. With the greed of the power companies and now industrial agriculture wanting more and that is what is being sought after here more agricultural land and more water. This is industrial ag who wants that 80 percent, the builder association front is just an easier way of getting people to say it is justified. There could not be enough homes and strip malls built in those arid regions to make a difference. Those are problems for the Sky, and skagit.

Water is the war here, look behind the curtain and see who is pulling the levers. I feel sorry for the small farmer who will celibrate this move. Because in the end big business will use this to run them out the way of life they believe in and not those who want to make sure fish are protected.

By 2020 water will become the # one demand and oil will be second.
Fish can not protect themselves from human greed but we humans can make the needed sacrifise needed to have a quality life for all creatures. We just have to identify the bottom line which is greed, more profits to satisfy the one percent. When you and me and most of us can not fish for the fish we love, your buddie Dick Chaney will still be fishing the private water of the Dean, Eastern Russia and beyond. Those waters will not be touched as they will be off limits for only the rich to continue on with the fine tradition of fly fishing for wild steelhead.
 
#23 ·
OC my friend, I may well be in denial; however, excluding the area above Grand Coulee, above the Snake River dam upstream of the Salmon River, above Dworshack on the Middle Clearwater is not going to hurt the recovery efforts of anadromous fish on these rivers. The only way to have the area above each of these dams, which is a considerable area, available to the fish would to tear each of the dams out, and the federal courts have already taken that off the table unless Congress passes a law allowing it and provides the money to to do.

Folks,

Like Keith, I've found what is in the press, the news, and the abstracts is confusing and conflict with each other. That is why I've gone to the actual 400= page proposal document itself.

The original year 2000 plan did not rely on historical records of fish actually swimming in the complete watershed. It simply took a look at a USGS map and decided every stream and river in the watershed held anadromous fish, whether it ever did or didn't. Things like natural barriers, waterfalls for instance, weren't even considered. That is bad science no matter how you look at it, and is why the courts did not approve it when it was challenged. The new plan is taking a less expansive brush and using actual historic and biologic data of anadromous fish being present in a stream within the basin or subbasin for inclusion as "critical habitat", and this is basing things on science.

Keith is correct, only lands deemed "critical to the surival of the species" can be included in "critical habitat" designation and protection. There is a lot of land with a basin or subbasin that will never meet the legal requirement of "critical to the survial of the species" and if it is not excluded from "critical habitat" designations, more lawsuits and more court involvment will ensue, all the while the areas that are critical habitat are in a free-for-all status, which I'm sure many in the mining and logging industries love because they can file suits to have the courts open them for logging or mine development or exploration. And I don't want to see that since I know how well mining companies have taken care of the land and resources over the years. The logging industry hasn't done a stellar job either.
 
#24 ·
I forgot to include in my last post that the Columbia Basin dams and how they are operated, including all tributary dams on the Snake and above Grand Coulee, were taken off the table for consideration of impacts on anadromous fish by the federal district court in Spokane and by the affirmation of the Spokane district ruling by the 9th circuit this past September. The courts ruled that the dams can be operated as the Corp of Engineers sees as proper and necessary because in the court's view, there is no evidence saying that changing the way the dams are operated or removing any of them will improve fish survival. The judge said there well may be negative impacts from the dams, but at this time there is no absolute evidence that changing how the dams are operated will increase the abundance of the fish. The ruling also said that the assertion of "possibly, or highly probable" does not meet the legal requirement of either the ESA or the Clean Water Act.

I wish it were different, but this is what NOAA-F must live within and the rest of us must accept. Unless we can persuade Congree to pass legislatiion altering both the ESA and the Clean Water Act to allow for "possibly or highly probably or we believe". I don't want to see either law revisisted because industry will be there in force and will be doing its best to get other changes that would weaken these laws.
 
#25 ·
Huh?

OC-- Uh, you're not talking about Roosevelt as the river above the dam, right? If you are, you're mistaking it for the Basin or the Snake. Open lands on Lake Roosevelt are in national monument status, which is one step below being a national park, and those lands are administered by the NPS. To pull those lands out of habitat protection would probably take an act of Congress and not just a bureaucratic shuffle by NOAA.

But even if they were, the only farmable lands are on the Colville rez, and that is off the table, says the court. This rez runs from Grand Coulee up the west side of the reservoir nearly to Colville. The east side of the reservoir would be impractical to farm except in limited benchlands-- areas so small as to be uninteresting to corporate farms simply because you're talking parcels of less than 50 acres that are widely scattered. Most of the reservoir shorelands are steep and rocky. There is very limited private ownership on the lake. For about 15 years, I spent a lot of time on that lake, fishing it from just above Colville down to the dam. Beautiful water it is, and I know it fairly well.

I think you're on the money with your thoughts about water, though. I can see corporate farms in the basin wanting more for less money and trying to suck more water out of Roosevelt to do it. That's something that must be discouraged...

Keith
 
#26 ·
You are right about the land above the Grand Coulee but what I'm getting at is if this land is taken off the list then using that water will be justified anywhere along the river. Sort of like a credit. The flows of feeder steams and rivers where no fish exist anymore will be credited to other places in the basins or in the flats of S Idaho. If Salmon don't spawn there anymore, if smolts don't grow there before migrating down the columbia any more than that water will be used for agriculture and power consumption and it wont matter where on the river it is taken from. This is how it is done now when we talk about environmental issues. One only has to look at industry and air pollution, one company can sell credits to another company so they do not have to change their way of existance. Once that 80% removal takes place it will justify taking water from any non Salmon bearing stream. If one stream has a yearly flow of 10 million cubic feet per year but bears no salmon a large portion of that water will be taken. As it stands now water must be left in those streams because it is marked ESA which means the Columbia has more flow. I think that is what Jim Lyons had in mind as under secratary of agriculture when he drew up the ESA listing on Columbia Basin Salmon. Developement was secondary of those lands but it was the only way to protect water flow by having such restrictions.

There are some protections as far as flow in the Columbia goes but we have already watched the power companies sucsessfully attack those protections. Now the ag industry, the water districts who are owned by the ag industry want more water to expand. First you get the land declassified then you have a great chance in federal court to change the water use in their favor. The Bush addministration knows this, the ag and land rights lobby knows this because they work together on round abouts. It will all be done legal like because they can, it is the plan of the powers that be. Again this is not a small owner right issue as they want us to believe, it is the biggest of power trips one can imagine.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top